Peer Review Process

Peer review (expert evaluation) of manuscripts in the journal “Psychology and Personality” is a key element in ensuring the high academic standard of the publication. The primary aim of this process is to select high-quality scholarly works, provide an objective assessment of their content, and verify compliance with academic, ethical, and editorial standards.

The editorial team ensures impartiality, confidentiality, and transparency in the review process, and all participants are required to adhere to the principles of Publication Ethics.
 

Review Model

The journal uses a double-blind review process, which ensures:

  • anonymity of authors for reviewers;
  • anonymity of reviewers for authors.

This guarantees independent evaluation and minimises the risk of bias.

 

Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial check, including:

  • compliance with the journal’s thematic scope;
  • adherence to technical and formatting requirements;
  • verification of copyright compliance and academic integrity.

Only manuscripts that fully meet the established requirements are sent for peer review.

 

Initial Assessment and Conflict of Interest Management

The initial assessment is carried out by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorised member of the editorial board.

In cases of potential conflicts of interest (e.g. if the editor is an author or co-author of the manuscript, has personal, professional, or institutional ties with the authors, or has an interest in the publication outcome):

  • they are fully excluded from handling the manuscript;
  • responsibility is transferred to another independent editorial board member.

After initial approval, the technical editor:

  • assigns a registration code to the manuscript;
  • removes all identifying author information to ensure anonymity.

 

Selection and Appointment of Reviewers

Reviewers are selected based on the following criteria:

  • possession of an academic degree (preferably Doctor of Sciences or PhD);
  • proven expertise in the relevant research field;
  • recent publications in the manuscript’s subject area;
  • experience in peer review or research;
  • absence of conflicts of interest with the authors.

The review process involves:

  • an editorial board member responsible for the relevant academic field;
  • at least two independent external experts.

Reviewers must not:

  • be affiliated with the same institution as the author(s);
  • have collaborated with the authors in recent years;
  • have personal, financial, or other relationships that could affect objectivity.

Before starting the review, each reviewer confirms the absence of conflicts of interest and agrees to maintain confidentiality.

 

Review Criteria

During the evaluation, reviewers assess:

  • relevance of the content to the stated topic;
  • scientific novelty and relevance of the research;
  • theoretical and methodological soundness;
  • practical significance of the results;
  • logical coherence and quality of structure;
  • compliance with ethical standards and academic integrity.

 

Reviewers’ Decisions

Based on the review, experts choose one of the following recommendations:

  • accept for publication;
  • accept with minor revisions;
  • accept with major revisions;
  • reject.

In cases recommending revision or rejection, reviewers must provide clear and reasoned explanations.

Reviews are submitted in written form (including electronically) and are stored by the editorial office for three years.

 

Communication with Authors

Authors receive the editorial decision along with anonymised reviewer reports.

If revisions are required:

  • the author submits a revised version;
  • the manuscript may be sent for re-review.

Revisions do not guarantee acceptance. If reviewers find the revisions insufficient, the manuscript may be rejected.

 

Final Decision and Editorial Independence

The final decision on publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief (or an authorised person) based on:

  • reviewers’ reports;
  • compliance with journal standards;
  • adherence to ethical requirements.

The Editor-in-Chief does not participate in decisions regarding:

  • their own publications;
  • articles by family members or close colleagues;
  • materials related to their academic or financial interests.

In such cases, decisions are made independently by another editorial board member.

All manuscripts are evaluated solely on academic merit, without discrimination based on gender, age, nationality, institutional affiliation, or other non-academic factors.

Typical review time: 2-4 weeks

Average time to first decision: 4-8 weeks